Memes and concepts

Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 15:32:56 CDT
From: U30585@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Memes and concepts
This post is aimed primarily at alt.memetics but I actively encourage
responses from .objectivism as well.
What are your thoughts on an analogy between the meme concept in
memetics and they idea of concepts and how they are formed from
objectivism? (memes are from Dawkins' 'The selfish gene' just in case
those in .objectivism haven't run across this before. The idea of
concepts in objectivism I am refering to is from the philosophy of Ayn
Rand, for those in memetics who may not have run across this before.)
I am specifically interested in thoughts on the origins of new
memes/concepts, especially the earliest, simplest ones, and then most
importantly, _how does one use then use these memes/concepts to build knowledge
about the true nature of objective reality?_
How do objectivism and memetics compare/contrast in answering the questions:
What is the nature of the universe? and How do I know what I know?
(metaphysics and epistemology)
In objectivism, valid concepts must always have a basis in objective
reality. The word 'table' for instance can be shown as valid by
pointing to a table and saying 'this is what I mean'. Of course it can
also be transfered to another person through a verbal definition, but
ultimately all the words in that definition must also have existing
referents in things or relationships in the real world. Thus in
objectivism, as long as the chain of concepts for any idea(meme) can be
traced back to real objects or relationships then the concept is valid.
In objectivist thought, I can then build my ideas about the world 'from
scratch', so to speak, from observations of the real world, _without
any prior concepts_.
Now to memetics. Since 'all knowledge is memetic', any ideas or
concepts formed and passed on to another mind are memes. The 'table
meme' is passed from mind to mind, and we all know (at least in a broad
sense) exactly what another person means when when they use the word
'table'. But now I quote from the meme FAQ:
"The 'independent' mind struggling to protect itself from alien
and dangerous memes is a myth; ...
One cannot oneself *choose* by which memes one is infected, nor could
one ever *choose* to fight memes by which one is infected. Memes
themselves fight eachother, both inside and outside brains. So memes
will choose *their* preferred partner-memes, not 'yours'. The memetic
perspective explicitely denies the existence of such a thing as an
autonomous (non- memetic) free will. If you have the subjective
experience of being firmly opposed to a certain meme, the first thing
you should do is wonder which memes cause this feeling."
Clearly the above quotation argues that there is no such thing as a
memeless mind. It suggests that what new concepts are either formed or
taken into a mind is entirely dependent on the memes that already exist
there. An example would be the often used situation of a Western
doctor or scientist not 'believing' or 'understanding' such ideas as
acupuncture, faith healing, yogic control of the body, meditative
flying, or the existence of God. The western scientist's training
precludes his belief in these things because of the 'scientific method'
meme that is already in his brain. (please ignore the fact that some
_parts_ of the above concepts have been shown to have validity by the
scientific method. I merely wish to give examples of pre-existing memes
precluding new memes).
The last sentence in the quote strongly suggests that within a mind,
new memes are validated against old memes. New memes are tested for
compatibility and consistency with what is already in the brain. _And
herein lies the difference_ HOW, THEN, ACCORDING TO THE IDEA OF
MEMETICS, ARE NEW MEMES CREATED? Especially important, HOW WERE THE
FIRST MEMES CREATED? Is there anything in memetics analogous to the
procedure of testing concepts against objective reality? Or can
concepts (memes) only be tested against other concepts (memes)?
If I wish to test the validity or reality of a new theory or concept
can I actually objectively test it against the real world? Or is it
the best I can do to see if it is compatible with the memes already in
my subjective mind?
In all this discussion I realize that it is entirely possible for a
person to hold mutually inconsistent concepts(memes), and to hold
concepts(memes) that have no basis in any external reality. I understand
that memes only want to be spread around (reproduce) and don't care
how or why they are passed to others, only that they _are_ passed to
others. But if a meme 'wishes' to spread it must induce the person
with the meme to communicate it. If one wishes to answer the questions
of metaphysics and epistemology, then the inducement to spread a meme
would be that it contains information about the real world. Yes,
memes not containing any objective reality will be spread, simply because
they appear to contain true information (they are consistent with some
part of reality but not with others), or because they contain stonger
inducements to spread them (or greater punishments for not spreading
them).
_But what does memetics say about using the ideas of memetic
knowledge to understand what I know of the real world, and how do I know
it?_
*************************************************************************
AP [:{) The Paramecium Man u30585@uicvm.uic.edu

Alan Parman writes:
"" What are your thoughts on an analogy between the meme concept in
memetics and they idea of concepts and how they are formed from
objectivism?
I think the philosophical-epistemological position of memetics is a
'perspectivist' approach, which denies the existence of one preferred way
of modelling the universe. Memetics will claim that science, our source of
knowledge of the so-called objective reality, is nothing more than a set of
(selfish) memes, just like any other world view (e.g. religions).
[see for instance http://www.hsr.no/~onar/Ess/Perspectivism.html]
There is something paradoxical about this, since memetics itself roots in
the mechanicist/functionalist world view that was brought to us by the
memes of empirical science. So if memetics is consistently perspectivist,
it will doubt its own validity (neurotic self-reference).
In practice memeticists tend to side with "the" memes of science, and
consider all other memes as parasites, obstacles in our attempt to see
reality 'as it really is'.
Some see science as a highly developed memetic 'immune system', helping the
mind distinguish between useful tools and mere parasites (Drexler).
This line of thought comes very close to the objectivist view.
"" I am specifically interested in thoughts on the origins of new
memes/concepts, especially the earliest, simplest ones, and then most
importantly, _how does one then use these memes/concepts to build
knowledge about the true nature of objective reality?_
If we have a _fixed_ system/method which tells us how to build knowledge,
memetics predicts this system will at last be infected by memes that have
become immune to the selective procedures the method uses. Each immune
system can (and will in the end) be fooled by a smart virus (cf. Aids).
To overcome this, an immune system has to evolve continuously. The same
holds for scientific method: memetics tells us METHOD NEEDS TO EVOLVE.
[A similar view is defended by Paul Feyerabend in "Against Method"]
"" New memes are tested for compatibility and consistency with what is
already in the brain. _And herein lies the difference_ HOW, THEN,
ACCORDING TO THE IDEA OF MEMETICS, ARE NEW MEMES CREATED?
Primo: In every chaotic system old structures are broken down and new
structures arise spontaneously. Inside a meme pool (which is such a
system), even the leading memes cannot anticipate all chaotic change.
Eventually they will always be replaced by new memes.
Secundo: A culture needs to evolve or else it will be overruled by other
cultures. This implies that every culture must contains metamemes that
regulate the speed of cultural evolution. Science and art are such
metamemes. They continuously form recombinations of existing memes, and
thereby add new memes to the pool.
"" Especially important, HOW WERE THE FIRST MEMES CREATED?
By natural selection. The first memes served a survival function for the
individual or the group. Only later, memes became 'selfish'.
"" Is there anything in memetics analogous to the procedure of testing
concepts against objective reality? Or can concepts (memes) only be
tested against other concepts (memes)?
I think of memes as _active_ structures.
So I'd rather say memes are tested BY other memes. There is no way of
testing a meme by a non-meme. Or is there?
Some testing-memes will do a better job than others. Memetics does not
provide criteria for this.
"" If I wish to test the validity or reality of a new theory or concept
can I actually objectively test it against the real world? Or is it
the best I can do to see if it is compatible with the memes already
in my subjective mind?
Same change of perspective: there is no 'you' to see if a theory is
compatible with your memes. It's the memes that either do accept a theory
or do not.
Probably the best way to test the validity of a concept is to let it
compete with as many alternative concepts as you can think of. A high
level of competition ascertains an on-going discourse (between memes) which
will illuminate the weaknesses in the new concept.
Still no garantee for objective truth, but you can't get any better.
(Note: this advice is an example of a metameme -- see above)
"" _But what does memetics say about using the ideas of memetic
knowledge to understand what I know of the real world, and how do I
know it?_
The only thing it says me is that I must not be too sure about the things I
think I know for sure.
++Marc
P.O.Box 16167, 2301 GD Leiden, Netherlands

From: leeb@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Lee Borkman)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: 13 Sep 1994 13:24:54 +1000
JUH@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl (Marc) writes:
>There is something paradoxical about this, since memetics itself roots in
>the mechanicist/functionalist world view that was brought to us by the
>memes of empirical science. So if memetics is consistently perspectivist,
>it will doubt its own validity (neurotic self-reference).
In what way is memetics dependent upon the validity of empirical science?
Certainly it was first suggested by observations of the world, but it is surely
big enough to stand alone now.
>"" Especially important, HOW WERE THE FIRST MEMES CREATED?
>By natural selection. The first memes served a survival function for the
>individual or the group. Only later, memes became 'selfish'.
You are begging the question here. Memes have to exist before they can be
selected. In all likelihood, biological evolution reached a point where a
meme-generating, meme communicating machine (the human brain) popped up and spat
out a few memes. these memes were immediately subject to memetic evolution, and
the 'selfish' ones began to get a foothold from the start. They may have
served a survival function for the being that carried them , but this is not
necessarily the case. A meme that is fecund enough, yet kills off its host,
will still get ahead, eg, the "Smoking is Cool" meme.
Bye now.
Lee Borkman

From: JUH@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl (Marc)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:35:04 GMT
Lee Borkman:
>You are begging the question here. Memes have to exist before they can be
>selected. In all likelihood, biological evolution reached a point where a
>meme-generating, meme communicating machine (the human brain) popped up and spat
>out a few memes. these memes were immediately subject to memetic evolution, and
>the 'selfish' ones began to get a foothold from the start. They may have
>served a survival function for the being that carried them , but this is not
>necessarily the case. A meme that is fecund enough, yet kills off its host,
>will still get ahead, eg, the "Smoking is Cool" meme.
True.
One thing: Didn't memetic evolution start long before the human brain
'popped up'? Remember Dawkins started his explanation of memes with the
example of birds copying (and mutating etc.) eachothers songs.

Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: arkuat@netcom.com (Eric Watt Forste)
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:04:12 GMT
U30585@uicvm.uic.edu wrote:
: What are your thoughts on an analogy between the meme concept in
: memetics and they idea of concepts and how they are formed from
: objectivism?
I don't think that the theories of memetics are particularly compatible
with objectivist epistemology, and the two or three objectivists I've
discussed this with seem to agree with me. The sort of epistemology that
is friendliest to the meme idea is the evolutionary epistemology of Karl
Popper and William Bartley.
: I am specifically interested in thoughts on the origins of new
: memes/concepts, especially the earliest, simplest ones, and then
: most importantly, _how does one use then use these memes/concepts to
: build knowledge about the true nature of objective reality?_
According to evolutionary epistemology, the growth of knowledge proceeds
in a way very similar to biological evolutions. First, conjectures are
made. People just come up with ideas out of the blue. Exactly how this
happens is still mysterious. This provides the basis of memetic *variation*
the evolutionary processes need. Then, the memes are transmitted are are
*selectively* retained. We have a nice sensory apparatus designed (by
biological evolution) to put little simple memes about our immediate
physical surroundings into our heads, and our nature (again, shaped by
biological, genetic evolution) is to trust these memes more than others.
If one of the blue-sky mutant memes comes into conflict with the sensory
memes, it gets discarded. Fortunately, in memetic evolution, fatal mutations
are only fatal to the meme in question, not to the whole organism!
This account explains how science is possible, how steady, real progress
in our understanding of the world is possible: by memetic evolution. There's
no room here for the absolute certainty Rand sought for in epistemology,
though, which is why I think memetics and objectivism are basically
incompatible.
: The last sentence in the quote strongly suggests that within a mind,
: new memes are validated against old memes. New memes are tested for
: compatibility and consistency with what is already in the brain. _And
: herein lies the difference_ HOW, THEN, ACCORDING TO THE IDEA OF
: MEMETICS, ARE NEW MEMES CREATED? Especially important, HOW WERE THE
: FIRST MEMES CREATED? Is there anything in memetics analogous to the
: procedure of testing concepts against objective reality? Or can
: concepts (memes) only be tested against other concepts (memes)?
The simplest, perceptual memes are created by our sensory systems
and the cognitive apparatus of our brains. That's your "table" meme.
The sensory systems and cognitive apparatuses are themselves products
of genetic evolution. How we come up with more complex memes is still
poorly understood; think of it as an exciting research opportunity!
C. S. Peirce liked to talk about "abduction" when trying to figure
out some of this stuff.
The very first memes in history were created in brains, namely in
animal brains long before humans were on the scene. Like the very
first biological replicators (which would later evolve into the
genes we know and love today) they bore almost no resemblance to what
we now call memes. They were very very simple, reproduced very very
infrequently, were generally initially produced by sensory systems
or by some quirk in the structure of some animals brain.
As animal brains became more sophisticated, so did the memes those
brains could carry, and so did the means animals had for tranmitting
memes to one another. The process skyrocketed during the evolution of
genus Homo, and then even more recently, we invented writing and so forth.
: If I wish to test the validity or reality of a new theory or concept
: can I actually objectively test it against the real world? Or is it
: the best I can do to see if it is compatible with the memes already in
: my subjective mind?
You can test memes against other memes that were created by your
sensory systems in contact with the outside world. Fortunately,
biological, genetic evolution has given you a sensory system that
creates memes that reflect the world as accurately as possible. It's
unlikely that you can't rely on your sensory memes to "really" reflect
the real world. An animal with a distorted sensory perception of the
real world is less likely to survive and reproduce than an animal with
an accurate sensory perception of the real world. Especially when you
have the sensory systems of five billion other humans that you can
cross-check with, I don't think you need to worry too much about
the old chestnut of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Objective knowledge
can evolve from subjective memes, just as life can evolve from nonlife,
and memes can evolve from genes.
: _But what does memetics say about using the ideas of memetic
: knowledge to understand what I know of the real world, and how do I know
: it?_
Knowledge, like everything else worthwhile (life, memes) evolves by
blind variation (coming up with hypotheses), accurate replication
(communication with others), and SELECTIVE retention (critical thinking,
recourse to reproducible empirical evidence, etc). This doesn't get
you absolute certainty, but it *does* get you objective knowledge,
which is worth quite a lot. And all of this can be understood in
terms of the meme model.
--
Eric Watt Forste || finger arkuat@c2.org || http://www.c2.org/~arkuat

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:15:35 CDT
From: U30585@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
leeb@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Lee Borkman) says:
>
>JUH@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl (Marc) writes:
>
>In what way is memetics dependent upon the validity of empirical science?
>Certainly it was first suggested by observations of the world, but it is
>surely
>big enough to stand alone now.
>
I think mosy people missed the point of my original set of questions.
(probably because they couldn't see the forest for all my confusing
trees of questions!)
I will pose a scenario:
I am infected with the 'scientific method' meme,
and the 'objectivism' meme. Therefore I believe that a reality exists
apart from my existence, or my subjective interpretation of it. "Reality
is that which doesn't go away when I stop believing in it".
The fact that I am perceiving something leads to the inescapable
conclusion that something exists that is perceiving, and something exists
that is perceived. This basic observation says nothing about the _nature_
of these two entities. It could be me and a demon, or one energy
pattern reacting to another. The very act of perception implies the _existence_
of the perceiver and the perceived, but it does not tell us the true nature of
these. It is finding out the nature of these two things which this post is
about.
I also
believe that I can start with perceptions of the world (needing
no memes or concepts to experience these perceptions: I need no
meme or concept of fire, in order to get burned by it), and noting
certain properties, similarities, and relationships of these perceptions,
and begin to build concepts(memes) from these. My metamemes of
science and objectivism cause me to accept only concepts(memes) which are
consistent with reality. I check this consistency with the scientific
method of 'observation-hypothesis-test'. I will reject any concepts
which fail to pass a test. (a proper testing procedure would be the
subject of an entire other thread. Let us assume for now that I rely
on potential falsifiability as a good test.) I therefore accept all
concepts, theories, memes, etc. which have been tested and not been
falsified, and which are consistent with all known knowledge at the time
( and are therefore necessarily consistent with perceptions of the real
world). I would build up a theory of the real world based on a chain of
concepts, one leading to the next, each tested and consistent with
earlier concepts, eventually leading back to pure perception, perceptions
needing no concepts nor memes to be able to experience them.
According to memetics, is it thus possible to maintain a set of memes
and metamemes which are consistent only with reality? Would I be able
to weed out purely selfish memes (no basis in reality) with such a
dynamic, evolving, scientific/objectivist system?
It seems to me that any memes which I was subjected to which were
spreading themselves selfishly, but were not consistent with reality
(as defined by those concepts as tested in the above manner) would be
rejected by such a system.
> In all likelihood, biological evolution reached a point where a
>meme-generating, meme communicating machine (the human brain) popped up and t
>spat out a few memes. these memes were immediately subject to memetic
>evolution, and the 'selfish' ones began to get a foothold from the start. They
>may have served a survival function for the being that carried them , but thi s
>is not necessarily the case. A meme that is fecund enough, yet kills off its
>host, will still get ahead, eg, the "Smoking is Cool" meme.
>
>Bye now.
>
>Lee Borkman
>
Would such a system as described above have the possibility of rejecting
memes like the "Smoking is cool" meme, despite their selfishness?
*************************************************************************
AP [:{) The Paramecium Man u30585@uicvm.uic.edu

From: wilkinw3253@cobra.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: 12 Sep 94 19:33:25 -0500
JUH@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl (Marc) writes:> Alan Parman writes:
[Meme speak deleted]
I don't think the Onjectivist is going to be too sympathetic with the meme as
a
synonym or replacement for the concept or proposition.
The philosophic problem with memes is that they seem to demand an ontology
outside of contextual human consciousness. I see memes as an interesting and
often useful metaphor for the socially dynamic aspect of ideas, but nothing
more. As should be apparent from Dawkins' book, the biological/genetic
model is an *analogous* to the survival and flourishing of ideas. This is
surely
a case where the map must not be seen as the territory.
Problems:
1. Memes are described as being teleological. "A meme seeks to reproduce
itself" lends to memes an intrinsic end and goal oriented action (teleology),
not to mention intentionality. I don't see any way that an idea can have ends
unless people merely talking about them _as if_ they did made it so. I'm sure
it doesn't.
2. Memes are described a-contextually. For a while I was on a mail-list where
a
great majority of the members claimed to be all for the advocation and
perpetuation of the "We" meme. After some discussion, it became clear that no
one was really talking about the same thing, though they all purported to be
proponents of the "We" meme. What they were missing was that conceptualization
is contextual and that "'We' meme" referred to different, though often similar
things in consciousness. Whose concept of the "We" meme is the actual meme?
The
way memes are describes make them seem like some sorts of floating Hegelian
"ideas" that have intrinsic essences in themselves independent of any
consciousness.
Basically memetics seems like a oversimplified metaphor that eases the mental
workload when it comes to thinking about very complicated issues like concept
formation, communication, and belief -- and probably reference too (as in
mental states referring to memes, not things in the world).
I doubt it would make a useful epistemological tool. A sort of sociological
abstraction for the social and esthetic appeal and success of the essential
characteristics of commonly held ideas? Maybe.
- Will Wilkinson

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: defy@teekay.win.net (D.E.Fanyo)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 16:54:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
wilkinw3253@cobra.uni.edu (wilkinw3253@cobra.uni.edu) writes:
>The philosophic problem with memes is that they seem to demand an ontology
>outside of contextual human consciousness. I see memes as an interesting and
>often useful metaphor for the socially dynamic aspect of ideas, but nothing
>more. As should be apparent from Dawkins' book, the biological/genetic
>model is an *analogous* to the survival and flourishing of ideas. This is
surely
>a case where the map must not be seen as the territory.
But in the case of memetics, the map *is* the territory, or have
I misunderstood?
>>Problems:
>1. Memes are described as being teleological. "A meme seeks to reproduce
>itself" lends to memes an intrinsic end and goal oriented action (teleology),
>not to mention intentionality. I don't see any way that an idea can have ends
>unless people merely talking about them _as if_ they did made it so. I'm sure
>it doesn't.
In "meme talk", I'll have to admit that I'm infected with a meme
to broadcast any new meme (even the idea of memes!)...and the
more interesting the idea, the more urgently the "Broadcast Me!"
meme works! Couldn't you say that all of us here on apo are
infected with some version of that meme? Else why are we here?
>2. Memes are described a-contextually. For a while I was on a mail-list where
a
>great majority of the members claimed to be all for the advocation and
>perpetuation of the "We" meme. After some discussion, it became clear that no
>one was really talking about the same thing, though they all purported to be
>proponents of the "We" meme. What they were missing was that
conceptualization
>is contextual and that "'We' meme" referred to different, though often
similar
>things in consciousness. Whose concept of the "We" meme is the actual meme?
The
>way memes are describes make them seem like some sorts of floating Hegelian
>"ideas" that have intrinsic essences in themselves independent of any
>consciousness.
>
Any abstract concept will be embodied in somewhat different
memes, wouldn't you think? And then there's mutation.
Have you ever played the old game "Gossip"? Send a message
across a dozen or so people, by each person whispering it into
th ear of his neighbor, and you'll find that the end result is
never exactly like the original -- it's mutated!
Look, I make no claim that memes are compatible with
Objectivism; I'm no formal philosopher and all I know about
memes comes from reading Dawkins's _The Shelfish Gene_ and
reading what's appeared on the newsgroups. But could
Objectivism at least file "Meme?" under Nature of Man?
I've definitely been infected with a new meme: "I'm _very_
interesting and fun to think and talk about!" So I, the host,
as doing just that....:-)
You might say the "Broadcast Me!" meme, paired with any new meme,
has been around for ages and ages. It's power is graphically
illustrated by the old, old myth of Midas's barber...remember
him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFanyo O brave new world,
defy@teekay.win.net That has such people in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccurrie@bloxwich.demon.co.uk (Christopher Currie)
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 20:44:23 +0000
U30585@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
[stuff from alt.memetics faq deleted -sorry]
> The last sentence in the quote strongly suggests that within a mind,
> new memes are validated against old memes. New memes are tested for
> compatibility and consistency with what is already in the brain. _And
> herein lies the difference_ HOW, THEN, ACCORDING TO THE IDEA OF
> MEMETICS, ARE NEW MEMES CREATED?
I don't want to defend Dawkins's little joke, which, like its
theoretical subject, seems to be getting out of control, but it's
clear that on the genes analogy memes could mutate: and the mutations
could be caused by something acting on a meme within a mind (a physical
cause in the underlying brain structure, perhaps, or, heaven forbid,
external evidence:-))
The ideas of memetics-as-meme, and the idea of
Objectivism as a mutated religious meme, both have a certain appeal:-)
But where do you stop? Big memes have little memes
Upon their backs to bite 'em
And little memes have lesser memes
And so _ad infinitum_
A concept which will be rejected by any self-respecting Objectivi...
sorry, SOOB.
> Especially important, HOW WERE THE
> FIRST MEMES CREATED?
Same problem as with genes :-)
Is there anything in memetics analogous to the
> procedure of testing concepts against objective reality? Or can
> concepts (memes) only be tested against other concepts (memes)?
>
> If I wish to test the validity or reality of a new theory or concept
> can I actually objectively test it against the real world? Or is it
> the best I can do to see if it is compatible with the memes already in
> my subjective mind?
>
> In all this discussion I realize that it is entirely possible for a
> person to hold mutually inconsistent concepts(memes), and to hold
> concepts(memes) that have no basis in any external reality. I
understand
> that memes only want to be spread around (reproduce) and don't care
> how or why they are passed to others,
Surely, on the genetic analogy, memes have no volition, but certain
memes will have greater 'survival value' than others. For example
a meme which has a self-defensive mechanism against contrary evidence
(e.g. Marxism-Leninism or Grossmanism) will have a high survival
value until the minds which carry it are
fatally bashed against external reality.
Christopher Currie ccurrie@bloxwich.demon.co.uk

From: kennedy@quark.phys.ufl.edu (Dallas Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: 16 Sep 1994 02:34:50 GMT
I would just like to add my two cents in agreement with the statement that
memes are an interesting metaphor for certain aspects of thought, but not a
full equivalent of serious theory of concepts and language. The analogy of
the human-created world of ideas and the non-human-created world of evolution
is powerful, but can't be taken literally. The human-created world is
manmade.
I do think that Dawkins' idea of "bad memes", viewed as parasitic, botched
concepts (analogous to viruses, actually), is dead on, though. The problem
with all of the evolutionary theories about human thought (Popper, Hayek,
Dawkins, etc.) is that they take their analogies literally, forgetting that
none of the human-created analogues is an automatic process, but formed in
someone's head. Dallas

From: jenright@interaccess (Enright)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Memes and concepts
Date: 12 Sep 1994 22:03:17 GMT
: I think of memes as _active_ structures.
Theory of Memetic Mutation:
When Objectivism spreads
Into everybody's heads,
It may keep its current name,
But it won't be quite the same.
(Sorry.... my versifying memes made me do it.)